Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2013 January 28

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

January 28

Programme for International Student Assessment

In recent years, people keep saying the US is lagging behind in education but look at the US top universities (most of them are at the top in the world). The US is doing fine in notable global competition such as International Mathematical Olympiad. I don't see how the PISA's results are accurate. They claim to measure average scores in Math, Reading, Science of each country from 5000 samples (sample = student). How can they make sure each country actually randomly select 5000 random students? What if China took like its top 5000 students to take the tests? There are also a chance that 5000 samples are above average. What accuracy are those tests? The article doesn't seem to talk about its validity as true predictor in performance.184.97.244.130 (talk) 04:27, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

PISA 2009 Technical Report, 2012, OECD Quality assurance: control and monitoring starts on page 115 Ssscienccce (talk) 05:00, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

You can always trust alarmists to interpret data in the most pessimistic way possible. The US is lagging behind not because of some crisis, but because the rest of the world is rapidly improving. See these projected Human Development Indices. In 1980, no country in the world had a HDI above 0.9 (from [1]). In 2010, 29 countries had a HDI in this range. That number is projected to increase to 40 in 2020, and 45 in 2030. --140.180.242.224 (talk) 08:47, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

In terms of your last points, the article actually has:

Education professor Yong Zhao has noted the PISA 2009 did not receive much attention in the Chinese media, and that the high scores in China are due to excessive workload and testing, adding that it's "no news that the Chinese education system is excellent in preparing outstanding test takers, just like other education systems within the Confucian cultural circle: Singapore, Korea, Japan, and Hong Kong."[15]

although later it notes how people from the OECD have said China is having success in moving away from rote based learning

Nil Einne (talk) 11:38, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

You might be interested in some recent UK debates over the validity of using PISA results in comparisons: during the last election, December 2010, June 2011. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:14, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

P.S. I should perhaps clarify I'm not suggesting 'outstanding test taker' and 'rote based learning' are the equivalent or one must lead to the other. Nil Einne (talk) 05:46, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

But the US obviously attempts to select its six best students for the IMO, which is obviously not representative. No one is disputing that the United States has a large population of very smart students, but it has a large population period. True, the very smart attend schools like Harvard and Yale and Berkeley but these are just a fraction of all of the students enrolled in college, and to have gotten there you must be wayyyy above the mean (it is also worth noting that at very elite institutions upwards of 10% of the student body is international). It is the middle we are concerned with, who presumably make up the majority of students who took the test. 72.128.82.131 (talk) 01:16, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Why does Hollywood depict American twenty-somethings so poorly?

I was reading the Ugly American article. It says "a study carried out in 2002 revealed that Hollywood also contributes to the "Ugly American" image" (but doesn't provide a reference). I tend to agree. Hollywood seems to turn out many movies in which Americans, typically males in their 20's, behave like sterotypical, boorish, culturally insensitive, idiots. And yet, almost every American I have ever met has been polite, well behaved, well educated and frankly a pleasure to be with. This is equally true of Americans I have met as a tourist or as a co-worker, both in the USA and elsewhere in the World. Of course there have been a few exceptions, but why does Hollywood strive to depict this small minority? Astronaut (talk) 07:43, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Because well-behaved young Americans aren't entertaining. StuRat (talk) 07:50, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Because those who can afford to travel to your country are of a social class that is not boorish, culturally insensitive, or idiots? And when you've visited our country, how much have you actually interacted with twenty-somethings? Have they been friends or relatives of older people who you are visiting and thus have some of that class/culture/breeding/whatever rubbing off on them? Dismas|^(talk) 08:00, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

As I said in my original question: co-workers (in both work and social situations) and people I have interacted with as a tourist such as hotel and restaurant staff, as well as shop workers, bar patrons, other tourists, etc. Astronaut (talk) 08:52, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not disputing your premise, but could you give examples, so we are striking in the right ballpark? My own perceptions (unreferenced) are that the problem is less severe than one might think - there is stereotyping of the young by Hollywood, then there is stereotyping of Hollywood. But I think also that young people will often have older role models, but older people will rarely have younger ones, so it is easier to have a universally appealing hero if he (rarely she) is between 30 and 50. Then younger people are left to fill stereotypical roles - it's just a case of what's left over. Yes, you said "typically" males in their 20s, so do you have examples of such films featuring older actors? The low budget party movie is designed to appeal to teenage males, because, as openly stated in Hollywood (so I heard on the oracle that never lies), they watch a lot of films, and don't care about reviews. So it may depend on your audience. IBE (talk) 09:23, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Hollywood needs to entertain, and people who don't misbehave are not as entertaining as those who do. --Lgriot (talk) 09:28, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

That applies as much to older adults as it does to teenagers and 20-somethings. Anyhow, I'm also curious about what movies Astronaut is thinking of. I know at least 3 very famous movies from the last 2 years where young adults and/or teenagers are depicted in a positive light: Harry Potter, Hunger Games, and Brave. 21 Jump Street could also count--the protagonists return to their high school after several years and are shocked by how tolerant and socially conscious its students are. The Twilight series could count, depending on what you consider a "poor depiction", but I'd consider most of the characters good people. --140.180.242.224 (talk) 10:03, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

The question was specifically regarding Americans, I think, so that wouldn't apply to Harry Potter or Brave. Even with The Hunger Games, it's still debatable, in fact. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 10:42, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Some examples: The Hangover (particularly the second one), Road Trip, Euro Trip, Superbad, pretty much anything with Will Ferrell. Come to think of it, one factor that seems to be fairly common is a comedy featuring copious alcohol consumption. And yes, these movies do seem to aimed at teenaged males. Astronaut (talk) 10:39, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I think you've hit the nail on the head with Will Ferrell. Steve Carrell is another who might have a shoe in the door, but from my experience, thinking people will find him more watchable. I've seen a little of the Will Ferrell audience, and it is definitely a niche market. He himself isn't young, but Old School is aimed at the frat boy mindset. I would say these films register highly in public consciousness (put them with Dude, Where's My Car, and you have a genre that people love to hate), and as a result of notoriety, we think the problem is bigger than it is. Same with the actual problem of American tourists - the really stupid or irritating ones just hit a nerve somewhere. I haven't met any, but I've heard stories. The most I've come across (living in Perth) is jock sailors, and even that is rare. I've met more of the good type. IBE (talk) 21:22, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

The only time I was embarrassed to be an American while traveling overseas was in Spain, and the American tourists in question were forty-somethings. RNealK (talk) 20:34, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

These wretched times of ours

The preceding two questions made me wonder about an intriguing fact. Why is it a common theme for people to reminisce about "the good old times" while complaining how the world is going down the toilet? This usually involves accusing "kids these days" of being shallow, stupid, rude, etc., in forums where teens have no chance to defend themselves. It also involves complaining about increasing crime, increasing poverty, and a worsening education system, even though data indicate the opposite is true (especially on a global scale). I understand that people like complaining, but by any reasonable standard, we live in the richest, safest, and happiest world in human history. I've heard very few people express this obvious fact, and plenty of people claim the opposite. I don't think I'm the first person to notice this. The Classical Greeks believed in 5 Ages of Man, of which their own was the last and most miserable. Ecclesiastes 7:10 reads "Do not say, 'Why were the old days better than these?' For it is not wise to ask such questions." The entire Garden of Eden story also shows this type of nostalgia. So why is this the case? Is there a name for this we-live-in-a-wretched-world belief, other than nostalgia? Am I guilty of confirmation bias and/or cherry-picking data, and is this belief just a quirk of adults that I won't understand until I'm older? --140.180.242.224 (talk) 09:34, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

"The quiet past is inadequate to the stormy present." -- Lincoln. "Things ain't the way they used to be - and never was!" -- Will Rogers. I think you've already named it: "Nostalgia". And I think you've hit it on the head. The very young, ideally, are relatively innocent of the world's troubles. As they get older and their experience broadens, they see more and more of the negatives and dangers. I've seen a lot of 1960s nostalgia, but having lived through it I can only say that it was a totally crazy time I wouldn't want to live through: riots, assassinations, 100 Americans killed every week in Vietnam, etc. Not fun. So we try to focus on the good things - civil rights advances, the moon race, the music, etc. - and try to minimize the bad things. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:35, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

There is also a competing concept that "everything new is better". This drives consumers to buy new products which may not be as good as the old ones they threw out. However, I think the attitude that everything is steadily getting better peaked around the 1950's, in the US. Since then, the threat of nuclear war, defeat in Vietnam, 9-11, antibiotic resistant microbes, increasing wealth disparity/decreasing wages for the working class, etc., have all tempered this optimism. StuRat (talk) 01:50, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I've been thinking about just this thing quite a bit recently. I decided to write up a kind of memoir for my kid about what it was like for me growing up (leading up to her birth and all the rest). In trying to remember my childhood in a deliberate and concentrated way, I have become more and more aware of how I had romanticized my childhood over the years. The fact is, I'm much happier now than I ever was as a child or teen and yet even with that awareness I still feel these keen pangs of nostalgia for things the way they were. All the teasing and bullying and loneliness I endured seems to have been whitewashed away, leaving me hankering for the "good old days" and ruing the "terrible times" I now live in - despite knowing quite consciously that my memories are badly coloured. It's a very bizarre feeling. Matt Deres (talk) 14:36, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Pre-fire buildings in Chicago

Does Chicago really have very few buildings and structures that predate the Great Chicago Fire? Our article on the Illinois-Indiana State Line Boundary Marker says that it was named a Chicago Landmark in part because it's one of the city's few extant buildings constructed before the fire. However, File:Great Chicago Fire map.jpg shows that the fire never got near Hammond (the Indiana boundary doesn't even appear on the map), and I would guess that numerous buildings in the unburned areas would survive to the present; it's not as if 1871 was long, long ago, and plenty of pre-1871 buildings can be found elsewhere in the region. The sentence discussing its Chicago Landmark status is sourced to something from the city website, but my browser can't load it. Nyttend (talk) 16:39, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

The page linked to is quite short. It says: "One of the oldest extant structures in the City of Chicago, the Illinois-Indiana State Boundary Marker was constructed to commemorate the establishment of the common boundary between the two states in 1833. Boundary surveying was necessary for the sale of land within new states and territories, and commemorative markers were often erected following the establishment of such boundary lines. Built of large sandstone blocks, the marker is in the shape of an obelisk, a traditional form for commemorative markers. In 1988 the marker was relocated approximately 191 feet north of its original site, but remains on the state line."

As it stands, in my opinion, the source is fine for the statement that the marker was designated as a Landmark, but not for the reason why. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 16:49, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Saying that it's one of the few structures in Chicago predating the fire is not the same thing as saying that it was in the fire zone and survived the fire at close range. Probably the majority of the structures which survived the fire were in rural areas at the time, and so were wooden buildings which were not built to last a long time and/or have been swept away by subsequent waves of urbanization.... AnonMoos (talk) 17:00, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Chicago in 1871 was a much smaller city than it is today. The parts of the city that escaped the fire were relatively low-rise and low-density, but also low prestige. The fire burned down the elite residential district along the lake north of the Chicago River. During the decades after the fire, Chicago grew rapidly, and most of the rather humble structures that survived the fire were torn down and replaced with tenements and factories. Most of the few surviving structures were houses in rural districts outside of the 1871 Chicago city limits that were later absorbed into the city as outlying districts. Marco polo (talk) 18:49, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Comparing the city map for 1868 to modern maps show that Chicago's city limit were still 6 miles from the Indiana border. Towns in between like Pullman and Hegewisch, now Chicago neighborhoods, had not even been founded yet. Rmhermen (talk) 19:25, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

That's rather what I was imagining. Most major cities in the USA have plenty of farmhouses at various locations, which existed before the city grew up around them. I've seen lots of pre-1871 buildings in smaller cities that have grown substantially since that time, including small and humble buildings, so I greatly doubted the nonexistence of such buildings elsewhere in the city. Nyttend (talk) 20:19, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Not sure where exactly they are but these are apparently the oldest buildings: [2] Rmhermen (talk) 22:04, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

The fire started in Mrs. O'Leary's barn on DeKoven Street, just north of her house; and since the wind was southerly, her house actually survived the fire. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:43, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

The O'Leary house was torn down in 1879 though - and that is the current site of the Chicago Fire Academy. Some images of it and of buildings which survived the fire [3] Rmhermen (talk) 22:58, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes. It was just a nondescript frame house, but the point is that it didn't burn, and it was well away from the Indiana line. The original question, about few Chicago buildings pre-dating the Fire, could be reasonable if they were made of wood - which is no small part of the reason the city burned. The Water Tower and Pumping Station survived presumably because they were made of stone. After the Fire, building techniques improved. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:35, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I think the lack of historic preservation may also help explain why old buildings didn't survive, as not all were wood. The industrial revolution was just starting and Chicago was a boomtown after the Great Fire. Oddly, Architecture of Chicago only mentions the fire in its lead, and the body text starts with 1880s. El duderino ^(abides) 10:00, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Age of Consent versus Orientation

What is the legal status of "sexual orientation" for people who are under the age of consent? In other words, since they can't legally "do anything," of what significance is their purported sexual orientation...at this stage, legally, it's not an act, but simply a desire, right? What prompts this question is the news that the Boys Scouts may allow gay scouts. If the scout is under the age of consent, can they legally really be anything...gay, straight, bi, etc.? 74.79.159.148 (talk) 19:30, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Of course young people are attracted to others before they act on those attractions. Many young people realize that they are gay, based on their attractions, long before they become sexually active. Merely identifying as gay may result and often has resulted in an individual facing discrimination. The Boy Scouts' prohibition of gay scouts affects not only those who are sexually active but all who have a gay identity. Marco polo (talk) 19:33, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

(after ec)The situation in the USA (where this dispute has arisen) will vary from state to state. Here in the UK, anti-discrimination law turns on perception, so if an under-16 here were to be denied access to goods or services because the service provider believed they were gay (or bi, or for that matter straight), that would be a breach of the Provision of Goods and Services (Sexual Orientation) Regulations (or whatever the latest iteration is called), which are attached to the Equality Act 2010. I'm aware that in many US states the law is not nearly this progressive (or interfering) and so there may not be a legal position to characterise; the question of whether discrimination has occurred in law is null whether the alleged victim is fifteen or fifty.AlexTiefling (talk) 19:38, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Additionally, this has been addressed by the UK Scout Association in their Equal Opportunities Policy which was introduced in the 1990s, so they were rather ahead of both the law and their American colleagues on this issue. Alansplodge (talk) 00:01, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I believe that the same is true in the United States, in states where discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation is prohibited. (Note that not all states prohibit such discrimination.) If a legal person perceives another as gay and discriminates against that person on that basis, the person discriminating violated the law regardless of whether or not the person affected in fact identifies as gay. Marco polo (talk) 20:33, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

To see which states prohibit anti-gay discrimination, see the list in Employment discrimination law in the United States. One of the categories in this list is sexual orientation. While the Boy Scouts' ban on gay scouts is not employment discrimination, most states that ban discrimination based on sexual orientation for employment also ban such discrimination for public accommodations, which includes most retail and service establishments. As a private organization, the Boy Scouts are exempt from most such bans, but they may be concerned that public institutions (such as schools) in states where anti-gay discrimination is banned will not allow the Boy Scouts to use their facilities while practicing discrimination. Marco polo (talk) 20:45, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

As for sexual identity equating to a "desire" - not necessarily, and at that tender age, probably not much at all. It's one thing to find oneself attracted to pretty girls or cute boys and to masturbate almost hourly, but to many young people the thought of actually doing anything icky (= sexual) with another person may never enter their minds, and if it does, may well get dismissed immediately as too scary to contemplate. Others are undoubtedly up for it (cough), and the sooner the better. It's a wide spectrum. Also consider the adults who identify 100% as either gay or straight, are in committed relationships, but who rarely or never have sex anymore. They haven't ceased being whatever orientation they are just because sex doesn't raise its ugly head any more. Sexual orientation =/= sexual activity. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:22, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

• What does this:

  On my honor I will do my best
  To do my duty to God and my country
  and to obey the Scout Law;
  To help other people at all times;
  To keep myself physically strong,
  mentally awake, and morally straight.

  mean? μηδείς (talk) 00:18, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
  • It seems self-explanatory. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:31, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
    • "To keep myself ... morally straight"... that's multi-interpretable. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:35, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
      • Only to those who apply a modern, narrow usage of the term "straight", which used to mean adhering to a moral code. Hence the old Nat Cole song, "Straighten Up and Fly Right". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:38, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
        • Bugs, it's not self-explanatory. It can be interpreted in many ways. It is used by some in American Scouting to keep gays out. Others say that's not what it means. Scouting in other countries uses different words, and don't prohibit gays, and Scouting in most countries now give boys and girls equal access to the one single organisation. Boy Scouts is now very much an American thing. The rest of the world just has Scouting. HiLo48 (talk) 01:53, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
          • As noted here,[4] the boy scouts' oath goes back way before the term "straight" was narrowed to mean "heterosexual", at least in the general public. "Straight" in this context means "having good moral character". And keep in mind that there are Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts in the USA, separate organizations, so just "Scouts" doesn't work. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:59, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
            • Yes, all true, but it's still obvious that some today use "morally straight" to argue for keeping gay people out of the Boy Scouts in America. HiLo48 (talk) 02:08, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
              • Bugs, "straight" as in keeping to generally accepted morals is what I meant by my quote (morally heterosexual, if we are to use your interpretation of the term, doesn't make much sense grammatically). What is moral? What is amoral? What is immoral? Is it relative? The entire sentence is ambiguous, and such ambiguity has been misused before — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:13, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
                • No, it doesn't mean heterosexual, it means having good moral character: honesty, chastity, honorableness, whatever. That's what "straight" meant then. You're trying to apply a modern context to a motto that's at least a century old. Substitute "upright" for "straight" and you'll get the idea better. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:24, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
                  • According to EO, "straight" as in "hetero" didn't make its appearance until the 1940s.[5] The meaning of "straight" in that motto is equivalent to "not crooked". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:32, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
                    • Bugs, I agree with you that "straight" means "of good moral character", etc. Unfortunately, some powerful adults in Boy Scouts of America don't. And they have successfully applied their anti-gay definition to that organization. HiLo48 (talk) 03:32, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
                      • If anyone in the scouts actually thinks "straight" in that case means "hetero", then they're dumber than a box of rocks. In any case, today they're saying from now on they're going to leave this matter up to local organizations to decide. Threats to sponsorship and revenue trump alleged "moral straightness" every time. However, it's still worth pointing out that they don't officially believe in any kind of sexual activity by the underage. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:41, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
                        • I don't think you've been reading my comments. How much more simple does "'straight' as in keeping to generally accepted morals is what I meant" have to be? Seriously. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:17, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
                          • That's not at issue. At issue (in this sub-topic) is what "morally straight" meant vs. what some are trying to use it to mean. I can understand outsiders wondering if there's a subliminal message in that part of the motto. What I can't understand is why (or if) any actual members of boy scouts would be so ignorant as to read it that way themselves - i.e. that they don't even understand their own motto. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:45, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
                            • I doubt that anyone seriously involved in the controversy thinks that the "straight" part of that phrase was ever intended, per se, as an antonym to "gay". But what everyone seems to have been missing, or perhaps avoiding, is that some of them may well believe that being gay (even apart from any overt sexual activity) is a moral flaw, and that therefore the "morally straight" part is relevant, in spite of it being a different sense of the word "straight". --Trovatore (talk) 19:44, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

To put it another way, I am wondering what the legal theory is behind granting some sort of sexual status…"orientation"…to someone who legally cannot engage in sexual activity. I understand that many categories of people do not engage in sexual activity…those who choose to abstain…those who cannot find a partner…those who are psychologically asexual and have no interest in it…etc. But these categories apply to people who legally could engage in sexual activity…minors cannot. Now a minor can be of a certain race, religion, or ethnicity, and as such is protected from discrimination. I am simply questioning how a minor can be somehow "sexualized" from a legal standpoint, when legally no act can occur. How can having a certain "identity" be legally protected when acting upon that "identity" is not? To take perhaps an extreme example, a man who wants to rape women, but does not, has committed no crime in the eyes of the law. Laws that apply to sexual offenders do not apply to him…absent any act, he has no "orientation" or "identity", and thus does not fall under the purview of the law. Yet laws that apply solely to sexual matters apparently do apply to individuals, namely minors, who cannot legally act as sexual entities. 74.79.159.148 (talk) 01:46, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Did you actually read the replies you got? You don't seem to be 'putting it another way' at all; you're just repeating the same question. The answer is that the law does not apply such identities directly - it relies on questions of intent instead. The Boy Scouts may believe that children come in well-defined 'straight' and 'gay' categories, but the reality is that that assumption is much more misleading for children even than for adults. Of course, it is, as you observe, possible for minors to develop identification with one sexual orientation or another. But that is not what the law deals with. If, when you say 'from a legal standpoint', you mean 'from the quasi-legal standpoint of the internal rules of the Boy Scouts of America', please say so. Otherwise, you have been given a pretty comprehensive answer. AlexTiefling (talk) 02:32, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Alex, by "putting it another way," I meant to explain my question since it definitely has not been answered. And if you read my second post, I am asking about our nation's laws, not the Boy Scouts. My question is not whether pubescent minors have sexual feelings…obviously they do. My question is simply how, in theory, does the law mean to protect something when the act associated with that something is not legal? 74.79.159.148 (talk) 03:40, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Sexual orientation need not equate to sexual activity. The scouts, in theory, would condemn any sexual activity by its underage members, regardless of their orientation. As regards the law, in theory, all underage kids are supposed to be protected from sexual activity by adults, regardless of anyone's orientation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:52, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes as multiple people have already said including in reply to your first question, you're still confusing sexual orientation with sexual activity. Someone can have never had sex but still be gay and this applies whether or not they can legally have sex (there's no reason why it would only apply when people can legally have sex). Otherwise you might as well accept the common misquote of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of there being no gays in Iran as being true there and everywhere else where homosexual activity is illegal. (Note that many of these countries, although there may be a lot of harassment and mistreatment, don't actually forbid someone from having a specific sexual orientation, they may not even strictly speaking make it a crime to publicly acknowledge that orientation. They only punish homosexual activity. And they generally do not care about the orientation of the participants.) And someone can have sex with people of the same sex, legally or not, but not be gay (or bisexual). And no not everyone in that category is deluding themselves. (BTW, someone who identifies as bisexual doesn't cease to be bisexual just because they're in a commit relationship.) From what I can tell no one linked to sexual orientation yet but you may want to read it as perhaps it will help clear up your confusion. Nil Einne (talk) 05:59, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

BTW as people have also said, it often doesn't actually matter what someone's sexual orientation is anyway. If you discriminate against someone because of their perceived sexual orientation and that's against the law there may be some possible defenses, but your perception being wrong isn't usually one of them. (And this would generally be the same as other forms of forbidden discrimination. If you discriminate against someone because they're a 'scumbag Arab Muslim' and that's against the law perhaps because of laws against discrimination based on religion and ethnicity; and it turns out they're a Sikh from India, you're not likely to get a way with it because you're wrong.) There may be some countries where it's okay to discriminate against someone based on sexual orientation if they're underage (I'm not aware of any but it's a possibility), but there will need to be an exemption under law for that. Perhaps it will help if you consider another example. Even if it isn't required by law, a sex shop could often discriminate against someone if they believe they're under the age of consent (most places which ban age discrimination include exemptions allowing this sort of thing). But if they only discriminate against someone who's underage when they believe they're gay or they believe they're heterosexual or whatever, that's likely to a problem if discrimination based on sexual orientation is. Nil Einne (talk) 06:24, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

OP: Marco Polo and I have been extremely clear: both in the UK and the USA (where applicable), the law operates in such a way as not to enquire as to the actual sexuality of anyone. That is the answer to your question. You cannot keep asking how the law determines the sexuality of a minor, when it does not do so. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:43, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

As for the Boy Scouts, the law has nothing to do with it. Scouts are required to have a religious faith/belief in god and to adhere to some vaguely defined moral code and to swear an oath to it. The notion of people having sexual identities is a newer philosophy than the the code the Scouts have accepted by default, which simply sees homosexuality as a sin anyone can be tempted by or engage in. μηδείς (talk) 19:43, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

They would consider any kind of sexual activity by the underage to be sinful. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:57, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Churches alone define certain actions as sinful. Civil institutions have other paradigms (offences, crimes, misdemeanours, breaches, lapses ...), and they have the power to impose punishments, which churches do not. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 06:23, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Churches and the BSA both can "excommunicate", i.e. kick someone out of their organization. Neither the church nor the BSA has any legal authority to do any "real" punishment. (They are like Wikipedia that way.) Overlooked in all this is that the BSA still requires a belief in God. So, I wonder when atheists will begin demanding equality within the BSA. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:17, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Their UK counterparts were discussing that very issue last month: [6] AlexTiefling (talk) 14:21, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

The problem with the scouts is that they are trying to remain a private, exclusive organization while enjoying benefits of public accommodations. There is no constitutional right to be a boy scout. However, there is also no constitutional right of a public accommodation to exclude a group arbitrarily. What parts of their motto are incompatible with a public accommodation? For example, a public restaurant can't exclude based on race, nationality, religion, orientation, etc. They can exclude based on bad behavior, for example. So, what's really going on is that the scouts are being forced to decide who and what they really are. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:52, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

It might be worth pointing out that, while sexual orientation isn't really a very clear-cut concept, neither are many of the other characteristics that are often covered by discrimination laws and policies, such as race, religion, nationality, sex, and gender. In most countries, the law doesn't attempt to define which race or religion an individual is - many countries do try and legally define nationality and sex and/or gender, but this is fraught with complications as many people don't fit neatly into categories (people with multiple nationalities, stateless people, intersex people, transgender people). That doesn't prevent governments from banning racial discrimination, etc. 130.88.99.231 (talk) 20:27, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Is my country, Japan, the strongest ally of the U.S. in Asia?

My question comes about after the renewed threats by North Korea. Kotjap (talk) 20:27, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Japan is probably not the strongest ally of the United States in Asia. According to List of countries by military expenditure, Japan spends slightly more than South Korea on a purchasing power parity basis ($44.7 billion versus $42.1 billion). However, according to List of countries by number of military and paramilitary personnel, South Korea has a much greater troop strength, with 639,000 active personnel to just 230,000 in Japan. Marco polo (talk) 21:01, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I think you need to define both "strongest" and "ally", Kotjap. As for who qualifies as U.S. allies in Asia, I think being designated major non-NATO ally by the States would be a good working definition (in Asia, these are: Israel, Japan, S. Korea, Jordan, Bahrain, Philippines, Thailand, Kuwait, Pakistan, and Afghanistan; plus there's one NATO member that is partly in Asia, i.e., Turkey), but you could choose a different one. And by strongest do you mean "most steadfast" or strongest in military terms? If it's the latter, you could still come up with various metrics, two of which Marco polo suggested above. But there may be others, like who's got nukes (Israel and Pakistan). — Kpalion^(talk) 00:32, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

There's also Taiwan, which the US has pledged to defend but doesn't formally recognise 59.108.42.46 (talk) 08:43, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to look at it more in terms of the attitude of US citizens towards the Japanese. During WW2 (and long thereafter, for some veterans), there was absolute hatred of the Japanese in the US. Then the period in the 1970's - 1980's when Japanese industry started taking American jobs made the Japanese rather unpopular, too. However, in the past decade or two, the economic threat has moved from Japan to China, so there isn't much resentment over that, any more. On the political front, Japan hasn't done much to anger the US, unlike other "allies" (such as Israel continuing to build settlements in Palestine, or bin Laden turning up right next to Pakistan's military academy, then the Pakistanis reacting to the US raid by arresting the Pakistani who gave away bin Laden's position). There is the whale hunting, which many in the US consider immoral. But, other than that, Japan has been on relatively good terms with the US. There are also cultural aspects of Japan which are appreciated in the US, such as anime. StuRat (talk) 01:34, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Japan's government is reluctant to remove US forces out of the country, as they themselves will be left only with the JSDF, however much of the population objects to their presence, due to drunken beligerence, noise from nearby airfields, and gang raping children. This is the same in South Korea. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 04:57, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

on at least some of that... --Jayron32 05:01, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

1995 Okinawa rape incident Also this. And one from Korea: here. Your boys do not appear to have a nice reputation, dear chap. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 05:06, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

We've been through this before. Statistically, US forces stationed overseas far outnumber the overseas forces of any other country, but on a per capita basis, they have a rate of criminal behavior no higher than that of other overseas forces. Particularly in East Asia, isolated incidents like these are seized upon by the local media and local nationalist politicians because of their sensational nature. The sensational nature is enhanced because xenophobic and racist elements in these countries view all foreigners as barbarians and see any interaction between foreign males and local women involving sex as an affront. That said, these actions are of course despicable, as is any rape or other act of violence against any civilian. They are sometimes just blown out of proportion and used to tar an overwhelmingly well-behaved group. I, too, am not sure what the original poster is trying to get at, but I strongly doubt that most Japanese will want to evict American forces, despite these incidents, if Japan faces an immediate military threat from North Korea. Marco polo (talk) 16:53, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

North Korea would not attack Japan if the Americans weren't stationed there. They have no reason to. Their objective, as in the Korean War, is to unite the two Koreas. This is why the South Koreans have military service, and have lots of American soldiers stationed there. North Korea would only attack Japan (with missiles) to try to stop the Americans stationed there from coming over and helping their South Korean allies. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 18:40, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Would have thought Israel was the most steadfast of US allies in Asia? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 13:08, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Continentally speaking, maybe, though I wouldn't say that's a certainty. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:25, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Algeria hostage crisis and Japanese citizens

Most of the hostages were Japanese, couldn't the government of Japan carry out an operation trying to liberate the hostages even though it's on Algerian soil? Thank. Kotjap (talk) 21:29, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Not true. Most of the workers were Algerian. And carrying out military operations on foreign soil is rarely done as it may be considered an act of war. See how well Operation Eagle Claw and Operation Entebbe turned out. Rmhermen (talk) 22:50, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

However, in the EgyptAir Flight 648 case, the insistence of Maltese authorities on keeping all foreigners out until the situation had pretty thoroughly spun out of control didn't work out too well. In any case, I doubt that Japan has appropriately-trained special ops teams which could be quickly deployed half-way around the world. AnonMoos (talk) 23:32, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

• You already asked this question, [7], did you read the answers? μηδείς (talk) 00:13, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

old train designs/pictures

For my university coursework, I need to create a 3D CAD model of some vehicle, and I chose for some reason this steam train: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Coalbrookdale_loco.jpg however, I now hit an obstacle, as nice as those drawings are, I cannot quite see how some of the little details fit together in 3 dimensions, I'm wondering where I could go to get more images, maybe some with more detail? might there be train museums I could email to ask about this, for example? possibly even some models I could look at photographs of, or even visit and study myself?

thank you,

86.15.83.223 (talk) 21:42, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Our article on Richard Trevithick states that this drawing is the only document extant. You may want to select a different engine for a sample of a 3D model. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 21:54, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

However, the article also says it has been "used as the basis of all images and replicas of the later 'Pen-y-darren' locomotive, as no plans for that locomotive have survived." There's a photo of such a replica here with information about where that replica is located, which may lead you to other photos. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:57, 28 January 2013 (UTC) Supplement: If you'll do a Google Image search on "trevithick swansea" (without the quotation marks) you'll come up with a number of additional photos. — TransporterMan (TALK) 22:02, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I am sure I remember seeing a little scale model of it somewhere around once. Can't seem to find anything of it now, though 86.15.83.223 (talk) 22:07, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

A quick Google shows that there's one in the Powerhouse Museum in Sydney[8]. Here is the full-sized Welsh one actually running, and another smaller(?) one at Ironbridge. Finally, here's the great man himself with a little model, in Cambourne. Alansplodge (talk) 22:55, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I found this and this - click on the drawings to get a nice big pdf file. Alansplodge (talk) 23:06, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Hadyou tried contacting the National Railway Museum in the UK? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:28, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Waterloo painting

Does anyone know who painted this please? I thought of Elizabeth Thompson (Lady Butler) but I can't pin it down to her. It's for the 92nd (Gordon Highlanders) Regiment of Foot article. Alansplodge (talk) 23:13, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Stanley Berkeley --Viennese Waltz 23:19, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks. Now I can see it on the Wikimedia Commons page. I hate it when that happens. Alansplodge (talk) 23:54, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Resolved